MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485765654 · doi:10.1155/2008/769265

Survey of Vaccine Administration to Splenectomized Patients: Are Guidelines Being Followed?

2008· article· en· W1485765654 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Kew, Darrell White, Kathryn Slayter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSplenectomyVaccinationBooster dosePediatricsMeningococcal vaccineNeisseria meningitidisImmunizationPneumococcal vaccineStreptococcus pneumoniaePneumococcal conjugate vaccineConjugate vaccinePneumococcal polysaccharide vaccineAspleniaReactogenicityImmunologyPneumococcal diseaseAntigenAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Asplenic patients are at risk for developing overwhelming postsplenectomy infection (OPSI), in particular with encapsulated organisms, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) (1). Vaccination against these organisms substantially decreases the risk of infection, and is considered the standard of care in these patients (2). The sixth edition of the Canadian Immunization Guide (3) recommends polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine for all asplenic individuals who have not been previously immunized. A single booster five years after initial vaccination is recommended. Individuals should also receive Hib conjugate vaccine and immunization for meningococcal disease (3). Despite these guidelines, studies have reported low adherence to the recommendations. Ramachandra et al (4) reported that 72% of 76 splenectomized patients received the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, 59% received Hib and only 39% received the meningococcus vaccine (4). A Canadian survey (5) reported that 111 of 164 (68%) patients received the pneumococcal vaccine during hospitalization for splenectomy, only four received Hib and two received the meningococcal vaccine. A Scottish study (6) of 974 splenectomized patients reported data on vaccination status for 73% of patients, with only 47% of patients having received all three vaccinations. We undertook a review to determine whether splenectomized patients at our institution were receiving the appropriate vaccinations and were being counselled about the risk of OPSI. All patients who underwent a splenectomy between January 2002 and December 2004 at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia, were included. Information was collected on age, sex, indication for splenectomy, receipt, timing and documentation of vaccinations, documentation of the surgical discharge summary including report of the splenectomy, documentation of administered vaccines, recommendations for future vaccines, recommendations for Medic Alert bracelets and counselling about the risk of OPSI. In addition, a letter was sent to general practitioners of living patients requesting details about the administration of vaccines outside the hospital if these data were not available from hospital records. If no response was received after the first letter was mailed, a second letter was mailed six weeks later. If patients had not received all recommended vaccinations, a subsequent letter was sent to the general practitioner so that they could arrange for vaccine administration according to the current standard of care. Of 70 patients reviewed, 28 (40%) were male and were between 17 and 84 years of age (median age 53 years). The most common indication for splenectomy was idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (n=28). Other indications included trauma (n=13), hemolytic anemia (n=7), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (n=3) and other causes (n=19). Five patients who had died were excluded from the analysis because of incomplete information. The response rate from general practitioners was 94%. Vaccination had been received by 91% of patients for S pneumoniae, 75% for N meningitidis and 68% for Hib. However, only 27% of surgical discharge summaries included documentation of vaccine administration or recommendations for future vaccinations. Only 6% of discharge summaries documented the risk of infection postsplenectomy and that recommendations were given to patients about this risk. Vaccination rates at our institution are better than previous reports. However, some patients are still not receiving the recommended vaccinations, particularly for Hib and N meningitidis. Implementation of an institutional standing order for the administration of vaccines may improve vaccination rates and should be evaluated. Although our vaccination rates are relatively high, the documentation regarding vaccinations, recommendations for follow-up vaccination and documentation about the risk of infection in the surgical discharge summary was lacking for most patients. Further studies are planned in our institution to assess the usefulness of a ‘checklist’ to improve these deficits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207